God does not exist. Prove me wrong. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

God does not exist. Prove me wrong.
in Philosophy

By RS_masterRS_master 31 Pts edited July 26
Since the age of 5 I was asking does god exist? They kept saying yes and who created science? I said Who created god? no reply.
About Persuade Me

Persuaded Arguments

  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 41 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    @RS_master ;Since the age of 5 I was asking does god exist? They kept saying yes and who created science? I said Who created god? no reply.

    In christianity we live by faith, not by proof. 

    Now faith is [the] substantiating of things hoped for, [the] conviction of things not seen. (Heb 11:1)

    "For in this hope we were saved; but hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he can already see?"  (Romans 8:24)

    hope
    ἐλπίδι (elpidi)
    Noun - Dative Feminine Singular
    Strong's Greek 1680:  Hope, expectation, trust, confidence. From a primary elpo; expectation or confidence.

    God is not looking to prove Himself to you. Can you think of a reason why that would be the case?
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    Being that this is the internet, you're going to get two types of answers;

    The anti religious point of view answer.

    And the religious point of view answer.

    Religion based questions, are just as popular as the political based questions are.

    God exists, Jesus exists, the Bible exists, and the religious buildings exists.

    And millions of people around the globe, go to a mass, or a religious service weekly, of all ages.

    I view the question, from the existence of those happenings.

    Because unless an anti religious person has a time machine, and can go back to the time when Jesus walked the face of this earth, and can say conclusively with their own eyes, that they didn't see him, with the help of that time machine?

    Then the religious answer, is just as good, as the, anti religious answer is.
    Zombieguy1987
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 111 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    That's not hard. 

    Short answer, Jesus Christ.

    Ling answer:

    A CLIA Examination of Textile collection review & technical construction file for the burial cloth associated with Jesus Christs burial ,as

    1.) the subject for lab test examination determined the following:


    Evidence report summary and test findings of a blood specimen sample removed from the cloth

    1.) Chromosomal abnornalties in the genetic sample tested were determined to exist.

    Abnormalities
    1.)The subjects blood specimen sample produced an irregular 24 total chromosomes in the gene and short sequence of DNA used to identify chromosomal sequences and when locating other genes in a genetic map.

    3.) The subjects blood specimen sample produced a Y chromosome with no human origin or human characteristics in the short sequence.

    Conclusion of summary of findings:

    Abnormal genetic characteristics exist within the tested sample and Gene sequence tested. Recurrent testing produced consistent results in each re-test, to ensure accuracy of each test result. Due to the nature of the samples tested, the subject having half the total amount of the chromosomes determined:

    1.)a chrmosomal difference between known subjects born of sexual reproduction 

    As subject had only twenty-four of the total fourty-six chrmosomes of a person who had a natural birth.

    As a result,

    2.) the subject is, based on the genetic characteristics of the specimen examined and the repetitive tests performed to have been born of a virgin.

    Lab test performed by thaler

    Mitochondrial DNA is only passed on from females to their offspring.

    As a result, animal species that pass on mitochondrial DNA leave generic markers.

    Human beings also leave generic markers.

    If reproduction determines how genetic information is passed on , then any animal life responsible for evolution would be present in mitochondrial DNA

    Except,

    The lab test determined animal and human life to have the same genetic day or origin

    2. That Adams genological record supports the genetic test results found in the lab report.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited July 16 Winning Argument ✓
    @ZeusAres42

    Richard Dawkins, can't take his anti religious opinion back can he?

    Another anti religious individual, thought, that he was being wise, by sharing Mr. Dawkins quotation, and thought that the other like minded anti religious individuals, like himself, would get a kick, out of such a statement, because this is the internet, and some of the anti religious individuals, can carry on with such unfounded statements, and no ones, going to challenge them on their anti religious, quotations, or opinions?

    When the anti religious wants to make statements, about Christian parents, in regards to their kids, they're crossing a line, that they can't back up from, can they? 

    "Is It Child Abuse to Teach Christianity to Your Children? "


    "Dawkins Thinks So"


    "Atheist Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children to accept their families’ religious beliefs is child abuse."

    "Call it “child abuse” and you get everybody’s attention. That’s the latest headline-gaining tactic employed by atheists whose agenda is to “protect” children from their parents’ religion. The Daily Mail has tweaked the “twitters” once again by its article opening with “Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as ‘child abuse.’”1

    Atheist Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children to accept their families’ religious beliefs is child abuse. He considers this form of “abuse” to be more devastatingly and permanently harmful than sexual abuse. Though he has said this before, his remarks returned to headline status after he reiterated these claims April 21 at the Chipping Norton Literary Festival. "

    "Misuse of the Term “Child Abuse”

    "This gross misuse of the phrase “child abuse” by Dawkins is not unique to him. Just a few months ago, another outspoken atheist, Lawrence Krauss, labeled the teaching of young-earth creationism as “child abuse.” And a 1997 speech by Amnesty International spokesman Nicholas Humphrey proclaimed that “freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with” and then just seconds later illogically and inconsistently proclaimed that society should protect children from their parents’ religious teaching.2 "


    "The Attack on Christianity"

    "Dawkins, Krauss, Humphrey, and countless others get a great deal of attention by claiming that teaching children to accept the religious beliefs of their parents is abusive. The particular anecdotal example Dawkins uses to “prove” his point—that religious teaching is a more crippling form of child abuse than physical abuse—is recounted in his 2006 book The God Delusion. Dawkins wrote the following:

    I received a letter from an American woman in her forties who had been brought up Roman Catholic. At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents’ church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst.4

    Dawkins says, “But the mental abuse of being told about Hell, she took years to get over.”5

    Dawkins and others, like Humphrey, are very much in the habit of engaging in logical fallacies in their rhetoric attacking both Christianity and religious teaching for children. They condemn biblical Christianity along with other religions, including those that do have oppressive doctrinal tenets. They unjustly and erroneously blame cultural and societal evils (like the view that children and women are property) on biblical Christianity. They lump biblical Christianity in with cultic aberrations like the Jim Jones Kool-Aid drinkers and with greed-motivated, power-mongering, historical misuses of religion by those seeking personal gain and political power.6

    Biblical history, in contrast to the assertions in these straw man arguments, reveals that the real cause of such evils is the sinful nature of man. God created man and woman—Adam and Eve—as perfectly good people, but they chose to rebel against God. The evils in the world are not God’s fault, but man’s. And likewise the evils perpetrated in the name of Christianity are man’s fault, not God’s. (For that matter, all the evils perpetrated regardless of the excuse given are man’s fault, not God’s.) And a proper understanding of biblical Christianity should not only arm people against falling for cultic claims and false rallying cries but also enable them to see that the claims made by people like Dawkins just don’t hold water. "


    "How Dawkins Thinks We Should Teach Children"

    "Dawkins claims that we should teach children about religions so that they can understand literature, but that we should discourage them from actually embracing any belief. “There is a value in teaching children about religion. You cannot really appreciate a lot of literature without knowing about religion. But we must not indoctrinate our children,” Dawkins says, adding, “What a child should be taught is that religion exists; that some people believe this and some people believe that.”7

    Dawkins calls it child abuse for parents to teach their children that they should actually believewhat their parents believe (unless of course the parents embrace the religion of atheism, which Dawkins fails to acknowledge is itself a “religion”—a belief that God does not exist). He labels religious teaching “indoctrination.” As one journalist correctly observes, “Religious people, though, would argue that advancing Dawkins’ views on evolution and the lack of a deity would also constitute a form of indoctrination, especially if these elements are trumped as ‘reason’ and held above theological standing.” 8 Thus, Dawkins is not at all opposed to indoctrinating children so long as they are indoctrinated to believe as he does. Let’s examine his take on religious teaching for children from several angles."

    "Withhold Your Personal Beliefs from Your Children"

    "First of all, consider the rather preposterous notion that Dawkins would have parents teach their children that people believe lots of things, yet they should refrain from teaching what they personally believe. Going even farther, the Daily Mail reports he said that when teaching religion and parental beliefs, “scorn should be poured on its claims.”9 Dawkins would therefore encourage all parents with religious convictions (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) to lie to their children. Such a practice would in fact require Christian parents to weave a whole web of deception. And they should weave this web of deception in order to deprive their children of knowledge they themselves believe is valuable and even essential for life.

    Aside from the complete lack of integrity such a behavior would require, such a nonsensical scenario would deprive a child of any knowledge of what or whom to believe, trust, and respect. Children so raised would have no idea of how to gain knowledge and understanding of the world—at least unless the state stepped in and indoctrinated them in accord with a Dawkins-style belief system.

    For in truth, even the atheistic belief that there is no God is a religion. Atheists claim they are non-religious, but they use their set of beliefs as a way to explain life without God—they worship and serve the creation rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25). There is no such thing as a non-religious person—you are either for Jesus Christ or against Him (Matthew 12:30). Dawkins states that he is committed to a naturalistic worldview. Therefore, Dawkins has chosen to exclude all supernatural ideas about our origins and about his own eternal destiny. In essence, Dawkins is merely advocating that children be indoctrinated in accord with hisbeliefs rather than their parents’ beliefs. And because he is particularly bothered by the idea that there is an actual hell where some people will suffer for eternity, he labels such a teaching as “abusive.” "

    "A Distorted Understanding of Christianity"

    "Secondly, Dawkins has a very distorted understanding of Christianity. In his oft-cited anecdote to justify the non-teaching of faith to children, he refers to “the mental abuse of being told about Hell.” In a January interview, Dawkins said, “‘It seems to me that telling children such that they really, really believe that people who sin are going to go to hell and roast forever … It seems to me to be intuitively entirely reasonable that that is a worse form of child abuse that will give more nightmares, that will give more genuine distress’ than being sexually abused.” 10 "


    “Forcing” Religion on Your Children"

    "Finally, Dawkins seems to think that teaching a child to identify with the parents’ faith is the same as “forcing” a religion on the child. He says, “What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe. That's child abuse.”

    "Yet history, common sense, and the Bible make it clear that ultimately no person can be coerced to believe anything by another individual—God’s Word teaches that each person is held accountable for his or her own beliefs and actions. Freedom of religion is about being allowed to live in accordance with your own religious beliefs. (Furthermore, freedom of religion includes the freedom to teach your children your faith—the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.)11 "

    "Throughout history parents have taught their children their own religious beliefs. And throughout history children have eventually evaluated these teachings for themselves—some reject their parents’ beliefs and others do not. We at Answers in Genesis emphasize the importance of giving children true biblical answers about life and life’s issues—not to indoctrinate them or to enslave their minds—but to equip them. We want children to grow up with the tools they need to make informed decisions about the most important decisions in life. The very name of our ministry, Answers in Genesis, makes it clear we are not indoctrinating and brainwashing with blind faith, but providing reasonable, scientific, and biblical answers for questions on origins. "

    "Conclusion: What Really Harms a Child"

    "Child abuse? We hate to abuse the term, as Dawkins and others do. Still, we have to point out that the very things Dawkins advocates—to deprive a child of living water (John 4:10–14) and the spiritual nourishment (1 Corinthians 3:2Hebrews 5:141 Corinthians 10:1–4) available in the Bible, to deprive a child of the knowledge that they were created by a God who loves them (John 3:16Colossians 1:16John 1:3–4,12–14), to deprive a child of the knowledge that the evils of life are rooted in man’s sinful decisions, to deprive a child of biblical answers for life’s greatest questions, to deprive a child of the truth about how to be saved now and forever, to deprive a child of the knowledge that “Jesus loves me” (Galatians 2:20)—can cripple and irreparably harm a child, for now and eternity."

    "As Christian parents, when you ponder your responsibility to teach your children what the Bible says, remember that they can best build genuine faith in Jesus Christ through God’s powerful Word (Romans 10:17Romans 1:16Hebrews 4:12). It is no wonder that self-appointed enemies of Jesus Christ—like Dawkins and Krauss—are afraid for you to teach Scripture to your children. It is no wonder that the enemies of God want to stigmatize religion—and especially Christianity—by the inflammatory epithet of “child abuse.” Take heart and don’t fail in your God-given responsibility. Don’t be intimidated by the twenty-first century echoes of the mantra espoused by so many parents during the last few decades of the twentieth—to let their children grow up with no religious instruction under the illusion they would one day seek out any information they need. Instead, remember daily what the Apostle Paul told to his protégé Timothy, recalling that Timothy’s mother and grandmother had taught him God’s Word from childhood:

    But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 2:13–17) "


    I get the impression that maybe, Mr. Dawkins, enjoys the spotlight, that via, his own mouth, self created for himself?

    The below, is from reference material for you.

    https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/is-it-child-abuse-to-teach-christianity-to-your-children-dawkins-thinks-so/

    @ZeusAres42


    "Why should the "epistemically neutral position/term" have to only to apply to just science? Why also not philosophy? 

    I'm not trying to educate you on anything. I'm just inviting you to at least entertain the idea that there might be a neutral position on this matter. 

    And maybe if you are at least willing to engage in an enjoyable exchange of ideas I'm sure that you will probably teach me something that I didn't know or consider which I'm all very open to.  

    Or you can just continue to be needlessly defensive; the choice is yours. "

    I'm not being defensive, I have a justifiable counter argument, being that I'm pro unborn baby, toddler, kids, children, and family, and I'm pro Christian family.

    And when an anti religious talking head, like Mr. Dawkins, wants to make such statements, I choose, the unborn babies, baby's, toddlers, kids, children, and those parents, who are raising their families, and aren't, or haven't broken any law's, and haven't been investigated by Child Protective Services, or law enforcement over child abuse, because some parents choose to teach Christianity to their own families?

    So Mr. Dawkins, can unjustifiably say what he wants, but his own opinion, doesn't count, when the religious parents aren't harming their kids with Christianity?


  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 553 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓

    Exactly where in this thread did I mention anything about Richard Dawkins, or talk about any of the things that you referenced in your response to me?

    Also, would you care to actually take issue with the actual content of what I specifically said rather than conjecturing up theories about why I might have said what I said.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 553 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    @Dee ;

    @TKDB 

    You’re obviously insane you never address anything asked all you do is tell others what you think they mean instead of what they actually say , you finish every sentence with a question mark .....yes you’re quiet mad 
    I myself have in this thread tried to be patient, kind, and give TKDB the benefit of the doubt. He is doing the exact same thing to you as he is me, and I'm taking the neutral position. I think my efforts here are obviously futile.  


    PlaffelvohfenDee

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • crossedcrossed 55 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓

    proof of god he measured the sun and moon out.


    The sun and moon are the same exact size from the viewpoint of earth. This is what make a perfect solar eclipse possible.


    Consequently, the moon and sun appear exactly the same size in Earth’s sky—making precise solar eclipses possible

    Quote taken from here.



    To do this god would had to measure this out.


    The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon but the sun is also 400 time farther away from the moon.

    God literally measured the sun out with the moon in mind so they both are the exact same size from the viewpoint of earth. So during a solar eclipse the sun perfectly covers the moon. God made the sun 400 times bigger than the moon and then measured the sun out and placed exactly 400 times farther away so they would be the exact same size.

    the Moon is 1/400th the size of the Sun, and at 1/400th its distance, enables educational perfect eclipses

    Quote taken from here

    https://kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe


    Beside the precision of numbers god is clearly an architect. Here is an example so you can see the preciseness. I am making a Godzilla  movie. To do this i need my pet lizard named Bluebeller and my sisters doll house. The problem is Bluebeller is 400 times smaller than the dollhouse. I need Bluebeller to be the exact same size as the dollhouse. So i place Bluebeller 400 times farther away so it appeared that Bluebeller was the same size as my sister dollhouse to make one sick movie.



    The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon so god placed it 400 times farther away so they appear to be the exact same size from earth.



    the dollhouse is 400 times bigger then my lizard. so i place the lizard 400 times farther away so my lizard would be the same size as the dollhouse. So i can make a good Godzilla movie


    RS_master



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    You have effectively laid the burden of proof on yourself by making the affirmative claim it’s up to you to prove there is no god. The opposite is also true when a believer claims there is a god the burden lies squarely with him /her to prove the veracity of the statement 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42RS_master

  • Being that this is the internet, you're going to get two types of answers;

    The anti religious point of view answer.

    And the religious point of view answer.

    Religion based questions, are just as popular as the political based questions are.

    God exists, Jesus exists, the Bible exists, and the religious buildings exists.

    And millions of people around the globe, go to a mass, or a religious service weekly, of all ages.

    I view the question, from the existence of those happenings.

    Because unless an anti religious person has a time machine, and can go back to the time when Jesus walked the face of this earth, and can say conclusively with their own eyes, that they didn't see him, with the help of that time machine?

    Then the religious answer, is just as good, as the, anti religious answer is.

    Did you ever stop and consider the third option? The epistemically neutral answer?


    Plaffelvohfen

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    @jesusisGod777

    Absolute nonsense and has been  debunked several times 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited July 15
    @ZeusAres42

    "Did you ever stop and consider the third option? The epistemic-ally neutral answer?"


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o2qUHhVJFk

    So basically what you're implying, in a sense, because you took the time, to apparently want to educate me, on the below? 
     

    "The Vocabulary of Science:

    First Steps to Science Literacy" This video course was originally produced as a paid course for Udemy and my Critical Thinker Academy website. "


    Thank you for teaching me, in regards to the vocabulary of science? 

    IE Science Literacy right? 

    God exists, Jesus exists, Religious buildings around the globe exists, millions of peaceful religious individuals around the globe exists, science exists, the internet exists, the anti religious individuals exists, just like the words vocabulary, and literacy exist? 

  • Why should the "epistemically neutral position/term" have to only to apply to just science? Why also not philosophy?

    I'm not trying to educate you on anything. I'm just inviting you to at least entertain the idea that there might be a neutral position on this matter.

    And maybe if you are at least willing to engage in an enjoyable exchange of ideas I'm sure that you will probably teach me something that I didn't know or consider which I'm all very open to. 

    Or you can just continue to be needlessly defensive; the choice is yours.

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • The CLIA is the only accredited science bureau for human biological testing and genetic researchr so Dee again your a moron , and to say  David S. Thaler who currently works at the Biozentrum - Center for Molecular Life Sciences, University of Basel. Has been debunked severalstimes when the testtcame outoabout 14 days agoadetermines youveyolosl credibility as a completecmoron. Thaler does research in and teaches Genetics and Microbiology.
    Current institution
    University of Basel | UNIBAS
    Biozentrum - Center for Molecular Life Sciences
    Current position
    Skills and Expertise
    PCRGeneticsMutationMicrobial IsolationAntimicrobial ResistanceEscherichia ColiMicrobial GeneticsRecombination

    Hes an atheist . When atheists disagree with other atheists. The problem is now your disagreeing with evidence. That means your not scientific which means your dumb. You lack a normal level of intelligence.
  • I want Dee to articulate how a lab test that came out recently has been debunked when it was added to the scientific journal.

    I want that to be explaination.
    RS_masterPlaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    @jesusisGod777

    You claimed Doofus........

    A CLIA Examination of Textile collection review & technical construction file for the burial cloth associated with Jesus Christs burial ,as 

    1.) the subject for lab test examination determined the following:


    Evidence report summary and test findings of a blood specimen sample removed from the cloth

    1.) Chromosomal abnornalties in the genetic sample tested were determined to exist.

    Abnormalities
    1.)The subjects blood specimen sample produced an irregular 24 total chromosomes in the gene and short sequence of DNA used to identify chromosomal sequences and when locating other genes in a genetic map.

    3.) The subjects blood specimen sample produced a Y chromosome with no human origin or human characteristics in the short sequence.


    I’m still waiting on your proof of your claim  Doofus
  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    @jesusisGod777

    All your piece does is name some scientist who says nothing about your Jesus claim you idiot 
    RS_master
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited July 16
    @ZeusAres42

    Come on you can present an argument for the below can't you?

    I'm defending Christian families, while you appear to be defending your individual argument?

    Richard Dawkins, can't take his anti religious opinion back can he?

    Another anti religious individual, thought, that he was being wise, by sharing Mr. Dawkins quotation, and thought that the other like minded anti religious individuals, like himself, would get a kick, out of such a statement, because this is the internet, and some of the anti religious individuals, can carry on with such unfounded statements, and no ones, going to challenge them on their anti religious, quotations, or opinions?

    When the anti religious wants to make statements, about Christian parents, in regards to their kids, they're crossing a line, that they can't back up from, can they? 

    "Is It Child Abuse to Teach Christianity to Your Children? "


    "Dawkins Thinks So"


    "Atheist Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children to accept their families’ religious beliefs is child abuse."

    "Call it “child abuse” and you get everybody’s attention. That’s the latest headline-gaining tactic employed by atheists whose agenda is to “protect” children from their parents’ religion. The Daily Mail has tweaked the “twitters” once again by its article opening with “Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as ‘child abuse.’”1

    Atheist Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children to accept their families’ religious beliefs is child abuse. He considers this form of “abuse” to be more devastatingly and permanently harmful than sexual abuse. Though he has said this before, his remarks returned to headline status after he reiterated these claims April 21 at the Chipping Norton Literary Festival. "

    "Misuse of the Term “Child Abuse”

    "This gross misuse of the phrase “child abuse” by Dawkins is not unique to him. Just a few months ago, another outspoken atheist, Lawrence Krauss, labeled the teaching of young-earth creationism as “child abuse.” And a 1997 speech by Amnesty International spokesman Nicholas Humphrey proclaimed that “freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with” and then just seconds later illogically and inconsistently proclaimed that society should protect children from their parents’ religious teaching.2 "


    "The Attack on Christianity"

    "Dawkins, Krauss, Humphrey, and countless others get a great deal of attention by claiming that teaching children to accept the religious beliefs of their parents is abusive. The particular anecdotal example Dawkins uses to “prove” his point—that religious teaching is a more crippling form of child abuse than physical abuse—is recounted in his 2006 book The God Delusion. Dawkins wrote the following:

    I received a letter from an American woman in her forties who had been brought up Roman Catholic. At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents’ church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst.4

    Dawkins says, “But the mental abuse of being told about Hell, she took years to get over.”5

    Dawkins and others, like Humphrey, are very much in the habit of engaging in logical fallacies in their rhetoric attacking both Christianity and religious teaching for children. They condemn biblical Christianity along with other religions, including those that do have oppressive doctrinal tenets. They unjustly and erroneously blame cultural and societal evils (like the view that children and women are property) on biblical Christianity. They lump biblical Christianity in with cultic aberrations like the Jim Jones Kool-Aid drinkers and with greed-motivated, power-mongering, historical misuses of religion by those seeking personal gain and political power.6

    Biblical history, in contrast to the assertions in these straw man arguments, reveals that the real cause of such evils is the sinful nature of man. God created man and woman—Adam and Eve—as perfectly good people, but they chose to rebel against God. The evils in the world are not God’s fault, but man’s. And likewise the evils perpetrated in the name of Christianity are man’s fault, not God’s. (For that matter, all the evils perpetrated regardless of the excuse given are man’s fault, not God’s.) And a proper understanding of biblical Christianity should not only arm people against falling for cultic claims and false rallying cries but also enable them to see that the claims made by people like Dawkins just don’t hold water. "


    "How Dawkins Thinks We Should Teach Children"

    "Dawkins claims that we should teach children about religions so that they can understand literature, but that we should discourage them from actually embracing any belief. “There is a value in teaching children about religion. You cannot really appreciate a lot of literature without knowing about religion. But we must not indoctrinate our children,” Dawkins says, adding, “What a child should be taught is that religion exists; that some people believe this and some people believe that.”7

    Dawkins calls it child abuse for parents to teach their children that they should actually believewhat their parents believe (unless of course the parents embrace the religion of atheism, which Dawkins fails to acknowledge is itself a “religion”—a belief that God does not exist). He labels religious teaching “indoctrination.” As one journalist correctly observes, “Religious people, though, would argue that advancing Dawkins’ views on evolution and the lack of a deity would also constitute a form of indoctrination, especially if these elements are trumped as ‘reason’ and held above theological standing.” 8 Thus, Dawkins is not at all opposed to indoctrinating children so long as they are indoctrinated to believe as he does. Let’s examine his take on religious teaching for children from several angles."

    "Withhold Your Personal Beliefs From Your Children"

    "First of all, consider the rather preposterous notion that Dawkins would have parents teach their children that people believe lots of things, yet they should refrain from teaching what they personally believe. Going even farther, the Daily Mail reports he said that when teaching religion and parental beliefs, “scorn should be poured on its claims.”9 Dawkins would therefore encourage all parents with religious convictions (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) to lie to their children. Such a practice would in fact require Christian parents to weave a whole web of deception. And they should weave this web of deception in order to deprive their children of knowledge they themselves believe is valuable and even essential for life.

    Aside from the complete lack of integrity such a behavior would require, such a nonsensical scenario would deprive a child of any knowledge of what or whom to believe, trust, and respect. Children so raised would have no idea of how to gain knowledge and understanding of the world—at least unless the state stepped in and indoctrinated them in accord with a Dawkins-style belief system.

    For in truth, even the atheistic belief that there is no God is a religion. Atheists claim they are non-religious, but they use their set of beliefs as a way to explain life without God—they worship and serve the creation rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25). There is no such thing as a non-religious person—you are either for Jesus Christ or against Him (Matthew 12:30). Dawkins states that he is committed to a naturalistic worldview. Therefore, Dawkins has chosen to exclude all supernatural ideas about our origins and about his own eternal destiny. In essence, Dawkins is merely advocating that children be indoctrinated in accord with hisbeliefs rather than their parents’ beliefs. And because he is particularly bothered by the idea that there is an actual hell where some people will suffer for eternity, he labels such a teaching as “abusive.” "

    "A Distorted Understanding Of Christianity"

    "Secondly, Dawkins has a very distorted understanding of Christianity. In his oft-cited anecdote to justify the non-teaching of faith to children, he refers to “the mental abuse of being told about Hell.” In a January interview, Dawkins said, “‘It seems to me that telling children such that they really, really believe that people who sin are going to go to hell and roast forever … It seems to me to be intuitively entirely reasonable that that is a worse form of child abuse that will give more nightmares, that will give more genuine distress’ than being sexually abused.” 10 "


    “Forcing” Religion On Your Children"

    "Finally, Dawkins seems to think that teaching a child to identify with the parents’ faith is the same as “forcing” a religion on the child. He says, “What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe. That's child abuse.”

    "Yet history, common sense, and the Bible make it clear that ultimately no person can be coerced to believe anything by another individual—God’s Word teaches that each person is held accountable for his or her own beliefs and actions. Freedom of religion is about being allowed to live in accordance with your own religious beliefs. (Furthermore, freedom of religion includes the freedom to teach your children your faith—the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.)11 "

    "Throughout history parents have taught their children their own religious beliefs. And throughout history children have eventually evaluated these teachings for themselves—some reject their parents’ beliefs and others do not. We at Answers in Genesis emphasize the importance of giving children true biblical answers about life and life’s issues—not to indoctrinate them or to enslave their minds—but to equip them. We want children to grow up with the tools they need to make informed decisions about the most important decisions in life. The very name of our ministry, Answers in Genesis, makes it clear we are not indoctrinating and brainwashing with blind faith, but providing reasonable, scientific, and biblical answers for questions on origins. "

    "Conclusion: What Really Harms a Child"

    "Child abuse? We hate to abuse the term, as Dawkins and others do. Still, we have to point out that the very things Dawkins advocates—to deprive a child of living water (John 4:10–14) and the spiritual nourishment (1 Corinthians 3:2Hebrews 5:141 Corinthians 10:1–4) available in the Bible, to deprive a child of the knowledge that they were created by a God who loves them (John 3:16Colossians 1:16John 1:3–4,12–14), to deprive a child of the knowledge that the evils of life are rooted in man’s sinful decisions, to deprive a child of biblical answers for life’s greatest questions, to deprive a child of the truth about how to be saved now and forever, to deprive a child of the knowledge that “Jesus loves me” (Galatians 2:20)—can cripple and irreparably harm a child, for now and eternity."

    "As Christian parents, when you ponder your responsibility to teach your children what the Bible says, remember that they can best build genuine faith in Jesus Christ through God’s powerful Word (Romans 10:17Romans 1:16Hebrews 4:12). It is no wonder that self-appointed enemies of Jesus Christ—like Dawkins and Krauss—are afraid for you to teach Scripture to your children. It is no wonder that the enemies of God want to stigmatize religion—and especially Christianity—by the inflammatory epithet of “child abuse.” Take heart and don’t fail in your God-given responsibility. Don’t be intimidated by the twenty-first century echoes of the mantra espoused by so many parents during the last few decades of the twentieth—to let their children grow up with no religious instruction under the illusion they would one day seek out any information they need. Instead, remember daily what the Apostle Paul told to his protégé Timothy, recalling that Timothy’s mother and grandmother had taught him God’s Word from childhood:

    But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 2:13–17) "


    I get the impression that maybe, Mr. Dawkins, enjoys the spotlight, that via, his own mouth, self created for himself?

    The below, is from reference material for you.

    https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/is-it-child-abuse-to-teach-christianity-to-your-children-dawkins-thinks-so/

    @ZeusAres42 

    Your argument:

    ("Why should the "epistemically neutral position/term" have to only to apply to just science? Why also not philosophy? 

    I'm not trying to educate you on anything. I'm just inviting you to at least entertain the idea that there might be a neutral position on this matter. 

    And maybe if you are at least willing to engage in an enjoyable exchange of ideas I'm sure that you will probably teach me something that I didn't know or consider which I'm all very open to.  

    Or you can just continue to be needlessly defensive; the choice is yours. ")


    @ZeusAres42


    I'm not being defensive, I have a justifiable counter argument, being that I'm pro unborn baby, toddler, kids, children, and family, and I'm pro Christian family.

    And when an anti religious talking head, like Mr. Dawkins, wants to make such statements, I choose, the unborn babies, baby's, toddlers, kids, children, and those parents, who are raising their families, and aren't, or haven't broken any law's, and haven't been investigated by Child Protective Services, or law enforcement over child abuse, because some parents choose to teach Christianity to their own families?

    So Mr. Dawkins, can unjustifiably say what he wants, but his own opinion, doesn't count, when the religious parents aren't harming their kids with Christianity? 
  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    @TKDB

    You say ....Answers  in Genesis, makes it clear we are not indoctrinating and brainwashing with blind faith, but providing reasonable, scientific, and biblical answers for questions on origins. "


    My reply .......That’s hilarious coming from a fundie who’s a follower of the the lunatic Ken Ham Whos lunacy has no equal ......Ken Ham, also known as Ken Sham, is the problematic president and CEO of Answers in Genesis, a Christian apologetics ministry, and a Bible-ical literalist.


    Rational Wiki

    Although he hails from Australia, where beer does flow and men and  the kangaroos floated during the Flood, he now lives permanently in Kentucky, in his office in the Creation "Museum". Ham wants children to be Indoctrinated taught "to think biblically"[2] (which is for certain values of think, of course). On a mission from God, he is a frequent speaker at homeschooling conferences and creationist events, where one of his favorite "arguments" is "Were you there?"[3]

    Ham is also the originator of the eponymous debating technique known as the "Ham Hightail". He is known for ruthlessly blocking people on twitter who disagree with him


    PlaffelvohfenRS_master
  • AlofRIAlofRI 300 Pts
    @TKDB Mr. Dawkins opinion is his right, and it DOES count as much as anyone else' . I would call it closer to brainwashing, but, some would consider that "abuse". That said, a parent has the right to teach their kids what they wish. In this case, IMO, sadly, and that's MY opinion. 
    My Grandsons have been raised Catholic, they've graduated college with honors, one teaches at an expensive boarding school, the other is in finance. They say grace at every meal. Fine boys. Religion has not hurt them. Others in the world HAVE been hurt by the same, or other, religion. Like anything else, it can be good … or not.

    I'm with Mr. Dawkins mostly. I think it does as much (and more) harm as it does good. Millions have died because of religious differences. Atheists don't try to brainwash children, destroy indigenous cultures, burn people at stakes for "heresy", protest military heroes funerals, molest little boys while preaching about Christ or pray for the end of the world or consider homosexuality as a mental illness …. as an organization, as a belief. There are whackos in  any group, there are whacko atheists. I think the world would be better off without religion, but, I admit some actually NEED it. The worst danger comes when it mixes with politics and becomes a secondary (or primary) "control entity". In this day and age we should be moving away from myth and looking to save the world ourselves, not praying for some god to do it. I've been looking for one as others have for centuries …. there is no proof of anyone finding one, (except in their own mind).
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    @Dee

    Your anti religious argument, is as dated, as it can get.

    It's the same anti religious rhetoric, taught by some of the previous, anti religious ideologists, to their likeminded sisters, and brethren:

    Idheinz, SemiSteve, and Rihanna.

    I give them their due credit, for educating me, from the individual confines of the internet, assistant with the sharing of their anti religious mindsets.

    "My reply .......That’s hilarious coming from a fundie who’s a follower of the the lunatic Ken Ham Whos lunacy has no equal ......Ken Ham, also known as Ken Sham, is the problematic president and CEO of Answers in Genesis, a Christian apologetics ministry, and a Bible-ical literalist."


    "Rational Wiki

    Although he hails from Australia, where beer does flow and men and  the kangaroos floated during the Flood, he now lives permanently in Kentucky, in his office in the Creation "Museum". Ham wants children to be Indoctrinated taught "to think biblically"[2] (which is for certain values of think, of course). On a mission from God, he is a frequent speaker at homeschooling conferences and creationist events, where one of his favorite "arguments" is "Were you there?"[3]

    Ham is also the originator of the eponymous debating technique known as the "Ham Hightail". He is known for ruthlessly blocking people on twitter who disagree with him "

    @Dee

    And I stand by my counter argument, in regards relates to any anti religious ideologists argument:


    I have a justifiable counter argument, being that I'm pro unborn baby, toddler, kids, children, and family, and I'm pro Christian family.

    And when an anti religious talking head, like Mr. Dawkins, wants to make such statements, I choose, the unborn babies, baby's, toddlers, kids, children, and those parents, who are raising their families, and aren't, or haven't broken any law's, and haven't been investigated by Child Protective Services, or law enforcement over child abuse, because some parents choose to teach Christianity to their own families?


    So Mr. Dawkins, can unjustifiably say what he wants, but his own opinion, doesn't count, when the religious parents aren't harming their kids with Christianity?  

    @Dee

    Are you maybe, "anti religious children," oriented, when it comes to those parents who are raising their kids with Christianity? 


  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    @AlofRI

    "Mr. Dawkins opinion is his right, and it DOES count as much as anyone else."

    No, he's wrong.

    Is he a doctor, or can justifiably diagnose people, from a stage, and casually label Christian parents, as child abusers?

    Like I expressed before, I believe that Mr. Dawkins appears to enjoy the attention from his own anti religious opinion?

    And I reiterate the same argument below:

    Another anti religious individual, thought, that he was being wise, by sharing Mr. Dawkins quotation, and thought that the other like minded anti religious individuals, like himself, would get a kick, out of such a statement, because this is the internet, and some of the anti religious individuals, can carry on with such unfounded statements, and no ones, going to challenge them on their anti religious, quotations, or opinions?

    When the anti religious wants to make statements, about Christian parents, in regards to their kids, they're crossing a line, that they can't back up from, can they? 

    "Is It Child Abuse to Teach Christianity to Your Children? "


    "Dawkins Thinks So"


    "Atheist Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children to accept their families’ religious beliefs is child abuse."

    "Call it “child abuse” and you get everybody’s attention. That’s the latest headline-gaining tactic employed by atheists whose agenda is to “protect” children from their parents’ religion. The Daily Mail has tweaked the “twitters” once again by its article opening with “Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as ‘child abuse.’”1

    Atheist Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children to accept their families’ religious beliefs is child abuse. He considers this form of “abuse” to be more devastatingly and permanently harmful than sexual abuse. Though he has said this before, his remarks returned to headline status after he reiterated these claims April 21 at the Chipping Norton Literary Festival. "

    "Misuse of the Term “Child Abuse”

    "This gross misuse of the phrase “child abuse” by Dawkins is not unique to him. Just a few months ago, another outspoken atheist, Lawrence Krauss, labeled the teaching of young-earth creationism as “child abuse.” And a 1997 speech by Amnesty International spokesman Nicholas Humphrey proclaimed that “freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with” and then just seconds later illogically and inconsistently proclaimed that society should protect children from their parents’ religious teaching.2 "


    "The Attack on Christianity"

    "Dawkins, Krauss, Humphrey, and countless others get a great deal of attention by claiming that teaching children to accept the religious beliefs of their parents is abusive. The particular anecdotal example Dawkins uses to “prove” his point—that religious teaching is a more crippling form of child abuse than physical abuse—is recounted in his 2006 book The God Delusion. Dawkins wrote the following: 

    I received a letter from an American woman in her forties who had been brought up Roman Catholic. At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents’ church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst.4

    Dawkins says, “But the mental abuse of being told about Hell, she took years to get over.”5

    Dawkins and others, like Humphrey, are very much in the habit of engaging in logical fallacies in their rhetoric attacking both Christianity and religious teaching for children. They condemn biblical Christianity along with other religions, including those that do have oppressive doctrinal tenets. They unjustly and erroneously blame cultural and societal evils (like the view that children and women are property) on biblical Christianity. They lump biblical Christianity in with cultic aberrations like the Jim Jones Kool-Aid drinkers and with greed-motivated, power-mongering, historical misuses of religion by those seeking personal gain and political power.6

    Biblical history, in contrast to the assertions in these straw man arguments, reveals that the real cause of such evils is the sinful nature of man. God created man and woman—Adam and Eve—as perfectly good people, but they chose to rebel against God. The evils in the world are not God’s fault, but man’s. And likewise the evils perpetrated in the name of Christianity are man’s fault, not God’s. (For that matter, all the evils perpetrated regardless of the excuse given are man’s fault, not God’s.) And a proper understanding of biblical Christianity should not only arm people against falling for cultic claims and false rallying cries but also enable them to see that the claims made by people like Dawkins just don’t hold water. "


    "How Dawkins Thinks We Should Teach Children"

    "Dawkins claims that we should teach children about religions so that they can understand literature, but that we should discourage them from actually embracing any belief. “There is a value in teaching children about religion. You cannot really appreciate a lot of literature without knowing about religion. But we must not indoctrinate our children,” Dawkins says, adding, “What a child should be taught is that religion exists; that some people believe this and some people believe that.”7

    Dawkins calls it child abuse for parents to teach their children that they should actually believewhat their parents believe (unless of course the parents embrace the religion of atheism, which Dawkins fails to acknowledge is itself a “religion”—a belief that God does not exist). He labels religious teaching “indoctrination.” As one journalist correctly observes, “Religious people, though, would argue that advancing Dawkins’ views on evolution and the lack of a deity would also constitute a form of indoctrination, especially if these elements are trumped as ‘reason’ and held above theological standing.” 8 Thus, Dawkins is not at all opposed to indoctrinating children so long as they are indoctrinated to believe as he does. Let’s examine his take on religious teaching for children from several angles."

    "Withhold Your Personal Beliefs From Your Children"

    "First of all, consider the rather preposterous notion that Dawkins would have parents teach their children that people believe lots of things, yet they should refrain from teaching what they personally believe. Going even farther, the Daily Mail reports he said that when teaching religion and parental beliefs, “scorn should be poured on its claims.”9 Dawkins would therefore encourage all parents with religious convictions (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) to lie to their children. Such a practice would in fact require Christian parents to weave a whole web of deception. And they should weave this web of deception in order to deprive their children of knowledge they themselves believe is valuable and even essential for life.

    Aside from the complete lack of integrity such a behavior would require, such a nonsensical scenario would deprive a child of any knowledge of what or whom to believe, trust, and respect. Children so raised would have no idea of how to gain knowledge and understanding of the world—at least unless the state stepped in and indoctrinated them in accord with a Dawkins-style belief system.

    For in truth, even the atheistic belief that there is no God is a religion. Atheists claim they are non-religious, but they use their set of beliefs as a way to explain life without God—they worship and serve the creation rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25). There is no such thing as a non-religious person—you are either for Jesus Christ or against Him (Matthew 12:30). Dawkins states that he is committed to a naturalistic worldview. Therefore, Dawkins has chosen to exclude all supernatural ideas about our origins and about his own eternal destiny. In essence, Dawkins is merely advocating that children be indoctrinated in accord with hisbeliefs rather than their parents’ beliefs. And because he is particularly bothered by the idea that there is an actual hell where some people will suffer for eternity, he labels such a teaching as “abusive.” "

    "A Distorted Understanding Of Christianity"

    "Secondly, Dawkins has a very distorted understanding of Christianity. In his oft-cited anecdote to justify the non-teaching of faith to children, he refers to “the mental abuse of being told about Hell.” In a January interview, Dawkins said, “‘It seems to me that telling children such that they really, really believe that people who sin are going to go to hell and roast forever … It seems to me to be intuitively entirely reasonable that that is a worse form of child abuse that will give more nightmares, that will give more genuine distress’ than being sexually abused.” 10 "


    “Forcing” Religion On Your Children"

    "Finally, Dawkins seems to think that teaching a child to identify with the parents’ faith is the same as “forcing” a religion on the child. He says, “What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe. That's child abuse.”

    "Yet history, common sense, and the Bible make it clear that ultimately no person can be coerced to believe anything by another individual—God’s Word teaches that each person is held accountable for his or her own beliefs and actions. Freedom of religion is about being allowed to live in accordance with your own religious beliefs. (Furthermore, freedom of religion includes the freedom to teach your children your faith—the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.)11 "

    "Throughout history parents have taught their children their own religious beliefs. And throughout history children have eventually evaluated these teachings for themselves—some reject their parents’ beliefs and others do not. We at Answers in Genesis emphasize the importance of giving children true biblical answers about life and life’s issues—not to indoctrinate them or to enslave their minds—but to equip them. We want children to grow up with the tools they need to make informed decisions about the most important decisions in life. The very name of our ministry, Answers in Genesis, makes it clear we are not indoctrinating and brainwashing with blind faith, but providing reasonable, scientific, and biblical answers for questions on origins. "

    "Conclusion: What Really Harms a Child"

    "Child abuse? We hate to abuse the term, as Dawkins and others do. Still, we have to point out that the very things Dawkins advocates—to deprive a child of living water (John 4:10–14) and the spiritual nourishment (1 Corinthians 3:2Hebrews 5:141 Corinthians 10:1–4) available in the Bible, to deprive a child of the knowledge that they were created by a God who loves them (John 3:16Colossians 1:16John 1:3–4,12–14), to deprive a child of the knowledge that the evils of life are rooted in man’s sinful decisions, to deprive a child of biblical answers for life’s greatest questions, to deprive a child of the truth about how to be saved now and forever, to deprive a child of the knowledge that “Jesus loves me” (Galatians 2:20)—can cripple and irreparably harm a child, for now and eternity."

    "As Christian parents, when you ponder your responsibility to teach your children what the Bible says, remember that they can best build genuine faith in Jesus Christ through God’s powerful Word (Romans 10:17Romans 1:16Hebrews 4:12). It is no wonder that self-appointed enemies of Jesus Christ—like Dawkins and Krauss—are afraid for you to teach Scripture to your children. It is no wonder that the enemies of God want to stigmatize religion—and especially Christianity—by the inflammatory epithet of “child abuse.” Take heart and don’t fail in your God-given responsibility. Don’t be intimidated by the twenty-first century echoes of the mantra espoused by so many parents during the last few decades of the twentieth—to let their children grow up with no religious instruction under the illusion they would one day seek out any information they need. Instead, remember daily what the Apostle Paul told to his protégé Timothy, recalling that Timothy’s mother and grandmother had taught him God’s Word from childhood:

    But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 2:13–17) "



    I get the impression that maybe, Mr. Dawkins, enjoys the spotlight, that via, his own mouth, self created for himself?

    The below, is from reference material for you.

    https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/is-it-child-abuse-to-teach-christianity-to-your-children-dawkins-thinks-so/ 

    @AIofRI

    Anyone can make statements, but unless there is evidence, beyond the very words outside of an anti religious individuals unfounded opinion, they are but expelled air, coming out ones own mouth, after speaking.

    And some, of the anti religious individuals, have mastered that anti religious practice, of wasting the air from their own lungs, to justify the anti religious attitudes, residing within their own minds?

    All children are equal, and all parents are equal, whether they are religious oriented, or anti religious oriented?

    AlofRI
  • To Dee.

    They were official lab tests. So the entire scientific community has validated there accuracy. You post on a forum. Lab tests that are certified outweighs your opinion of objective reality. So you can continue looking retarded and slashing your credibility disagreeing with certified lab tests you only look like a moron. At this point I'm considering you to be in the third grade ignoring your stupid .
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited July 17
    @ZeusAres42

    Oh my, isn't Richard Dawkins, in a sense, an anti religious spokesman?

    And you're, in a sense, an anti religious spokesman as well, I believe? 

    He's a spokesman, that has gone before various groups of individuals, who showed up, I'm guessing to find out, how they'll be entertained?

    And here you are, and myself, and others, showed up to find out, how we'll be entertained? 

    There are videos of Mr. Dawkins on YouTube, and they did entertain.

    "Exactly where in this thread did I mention anything about Richard Dawkins, or talk about any of the things that you referenced in your response to me? 

    Also, would you care to actually take issue with the actual content of what I specifically said rather than conjecturing up theories about why I might have said what I said." 
  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    @TKDB


    You say ......And I stand by my counter argument, in regards relates to any anti religious ideologists argument:


    My reply .....You haven’t even attempted a reply to what I stated about Ken Ham your leader 


    You say ......I have a justifiable counter argument, being that I'm pro unborn baby, toddler, kids, children, and family, and I'm pro Christian family.


    My reply ......That’s nothing to do with me why are you telling me this?


    You say ......And when an anti religious talking head, like Mr. Dawkins, wants to make such statements, I choose, the unborn babies, baby's, toddlers, kids, children, and those parents, who are raising their families, and aren't, or haven't broken any law's, and haven't been investigated by Child Protective Services, or law enforcement over child abuse, because some parents choose to teach Christianity to their own families?


    My reply .....Why are you telling me? Ring up Dawkins and tell him what’s someone else got to do with me?


    You say ......So Mr. Dawkins, can unjustifiably say what he wants, but his own opinion, doesn't count, when the religious parents aren't harming their kids with Christianity?  


    My reply ......Why are you telling me about someone I don’t know?


    You say .......Are you maybe, "anti religious children," oriented, when it comes to those parents who are raising their kids with Christianity? 


    My reply ......No I’m not anti religious , can you now attempt to answer what I actually said instead of your assorted ramblings of things I never said?

    AlofRIZeusAres42
  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    edited July 17
    @jesusisGod777


    You say ......They were official lab tests


    There weren’t which is why you cannot post them up 


    You say .....So the entire scientific community has validated there accuracy. 


    My reply ......They haven’t which is why you cannot post up where the entire community admit this , that’s two lies from the “Christian “ now


    You say ......You post on a forum. 


    My reply ..... Very well spotted 


    You say .......Lab tests that are certified outweighs your opinion of objective reality. 


    My reply ......Labs tests that you cannot post a link to you mean? Where did I venture an opinion on objective reality you idiot?


    You say ......So you can continue looking retarded and slashing your credibility 


    My reply .....The only one doing that is you as you’re an idiot who shoots their fool mouth off and lies , and has nothing to back their up with 


    You say .....disagreeing with certified lab tests you only look like a moron. 


    My reply .....I don’t disagree with certified lab tests I make my evaluation when presented with such which is something you have failed to do you idiotic troll.


    You say.......At this point I'm considering you to be in the third grade ignoring your stupid .


    My reply .....This coming from a foul mouthed angry so called “Christian” who cannot spell and has the brain powers of a  unwatered pot plant is hilarious 

  • AlofRIAlofRI 300 Pts
    @RS_master ;

    Many have tried to prove you wrong for at least 20 centuries. None have succeeded. 

    HE only exists in the imaginations of those who believe in a book, compiled by an Emperor, out of short stories, out of ancient scrolls and chiseled stone tablets hundreds of years after the "facts". Since then NO ONE has actually PROVEN you wrong. I wouldn't waste more time trying to prove a compilation of myths were a compilation of truths.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited July 17
    @Dee

    I'm not familiar with him, don't give him funds, and he's not my leader.

    Oh he's religious, so attach him, to your argument, for the sake of your own argument right? 

    "My reply .....You haven’t even attempted a reply to what I stated about Ken Ham your leader."

    "You say ......I have a justifiable counter argument, being that I'm pro unborn baby, toddler, kids, children, and family, and I'm pro Christian family."


    "My reply ......That’s nothing to do with me why are you telling me this?"

    Because when it comes to being anti religious, some of the anti religious, and their anti religious ideology, care less about other's, and are verbally chronic about reinforcing their anti religious mindsets? 

    I don't know where you're from.

    But globally, it's voluntary to be religious, just as its voluntary to be anti religious.

    And the internet, is the biggest communication church on the planet.

    Because via, their computers, millions of individuals like you, and I, come to this Church of Communication, right?

    And the anti religious individuals, have been coming to this Church for years, so welcome sister, your brethren, will appreciate your anti religious efforts?

    It's the same anti religious rhetoric, taught by some of the previous, anti religious ideologists, to their likeminded sisters, and brethren:


    Idheinz, SemiSteve, and Rihanna.

    I give them their due credit, for educating me, from the individual confines of the internet, assisting, with the sharing of their anti religiousmindsets?

    @Dee

    And your same anti religious rhetoric is just as educational and entertaining.

  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    @TKDB



    You say ......I'm not familiar with him, don't give him funds, and he's not my leader.


    My reply ......Yet you mentioned that you follow the teachings of his ministry 


    You say .......Oh he's religious, so attach him, to your argument, for the sake of your own argument right? 


    My reply ......You’re the one who mentioned his ministry not I 



    You say .......Because when it comes to being anti religious, some of the anti religious, and their anti religious ideology, care less about other's, and are verbally chronic about reinforcing their anti religious mindsets? 


    My reply .....Why do you keep telling me about other people?


    You say .......I don't know where you're from.

    But globally, it's voluntary to be religious, just as its voluntary to be anti religious.


    My reply ......Nonsense , you asked all your children when they were very young did they want to go to church and you let them pick there own schools?


    You say ......And the internet, is the biggest communication church on the planet.

    Because via, their computers, millions of individuals like you, and I, come to this Church of Communication, right?


    My reply .....The Internet is not a church


    You say .......And the anti religious individuals, have been coming to this Church for years, so welcome sister, your brethren, will appreciate your anti religious efforts?

    It's the same anti religious rhetoric, taught by some of the previous, anti religious ideologists, to their likeminded sisters, and brethren:


    My reply .....Its a debate site look at the title of the debate , people are here to debate , I know you hate freedom of speech but there you go 


    You say .......Idheinz, SemiSteve, and Rihanna.


    I give them their due credit, for educating me, from the individual confines of the internet, assisting, with the sharing of their anti religiousmindsets?


    My reply ......There you go mentioning people I don’t know yet again 



    You say .......Dee

    And your same anti religious rhetoric is just as educational and entertaining.


    My reply ......You never address what’s asked of you why’s that?

    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited July 17
    @Dee

    I'm not familiar with him, don't give him funds, and he's not my leader.

    "My reply ......Yet you mentioned that you follow the teachings of his ministry."

    Prove that I stated that with my own words?

    Show the forum, that specific quotation? 


    Oh he's religious, so attach him, to your argument, for the sake of your own argument right? 

    "My reply ......You’re the one who mentioned his ministry not I."

    No, I did not, look again, and show the forum, that specific quotation? 


    Because when it comes to being anti religious, some of the anti religious, and their anti religious ideology, care less about other's, and are verbally chronic about reinforcing their anti religious mindsets? 

    "My reply .....Why do you keep telling me about other people?"

    Because you're a part of the anti religious crowd, who is educating me, and the others, who aren't anti religious oriented like yourself?


    This as well, is a part of the Anti Religious History, that has come to be a part of the internet itself, and the anti religious, are notorious for telling other's how to raise their kids, when it comes to the Christian parents?

    And apparently some of the anti religious, have an issue, with outwardly talking about kids, who aren't their own, when it comes to the Christian parents?

    So they dodge making other people's kids, as a part of their arguments, and go after the Christian parents, with their anti religious mindsets instead? 


    I don't know where you're from.

    But globally, it's voluntary to be religious, just as its voluntary to be anti religious.


    "My reply ......Nonsense , you asked all your children when they were very young did they want to go to church and you let them pick there own schools?"

    I've seen newborns in church with their parents, along with their kids, children, and other adults.

    And each time, when I've gone into a religious building, and none of them seem to have had an issue, with they, being in church, with their parents? 

    As far as schools go, some either homeschool their kids, or they go to the local schools near, or around their neighborhoods?

    I'm not familiar with any kids, who are picking their own kindergarten, elementary school, or middle school, or high schools?

    When it comes to colleges in general, that's a different conversation.



    And the internet, is the biggest communication church on the planet.

    Because via, their computers, millions of individuals like you, and I, come to this Church of Communication, right?


    "My reply .....The Internet is not a church"

    Sure it is, it's become part Anti Religious church, and part Religious church as well?

    Billions of individuals attend this Church of Communication every day. 

    You're here, just as I am, aren't you? 


    And the anti religious individuals, have been coming to this Church for years, so welcome sister, your brethren, will appreciate your anti religious efforts?

    It's the same anti religious rhetoric, taught by some of the previous, anti religious ideologists, to their likeminded sisters, and brethren:

    "My reply .....Its a debate site look at the title of the debate , people are here to debate , I know you hate freedom of speech but there you go."

    Some, are apparently, on the internet, to push their individual agendas, using the debate platforms, as their artificial pulpits? 


    And no, I don't dislike freedom of speech, but, I do believe in debating in an equal and fair manner, I discuss both sides, of the debate aisles.


    And Idheinz, SemiSteve, and rjhenn, I give them their due credit, for educating me, from the individual confines of the internet, assisting, with the sharing of their anti religiousmindsets?


    "My reply ......There you go mentioning people I don’t know yet again."

    Because you, and they, are a part of the Anti Religious History, that exists in the internet.


    And your same anti religious rhetoric is just as educational and entertaining.

    "My reply ......You never address what’s asked of you why’s that?"


    I have equally and fairly, discussed what has been addressed to me, multiple times.


  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    @TKDB

    You’re obviously insane you never address anything asked all you do is tell others what you think they mean instead of what they actually say , you finish every sentence with a question mark .....yes you’re quiet mad 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1934 Pts
    The only source we have in any way suggesting the god's existence are ancient books and writings - all of which constantly contradict each other and were made at the time when people did not know much about the world. Should they be used as evidence? Well, you do not use Lord of the Rings as the evidence for existence of hobbits, do you? It is the same here.

    One thing you learn very early on in life, if you never stop thinking critically, is that a lot of people do not know what they are talking about. Adults or not, scholars or not, many people will say things that make no sense, and believe in things that exist only in their minds. A lot of people believe that "god" exists, and in the past, during the Dark Ages, virtually everyone on Earth believed that - but that belief is fundamentally based on nothing but wishful thinking.

    It is reasonable to assume that no gods exist, only our Universe does.
    RS_master
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    Care to comment on the below?

    This as well, is a part of the Anti Religious History, that has come to be a part of the internet itself, and the anti religious, are notorious for telling other's how to raise their kids, when it comes to the Christian parents?

    And apparently some of the anti religious, have an issue, with outwardly talking about kids, who aren't their own, when it comes to the Christian parents?

    So they dodge making other people's kids, as a part of their arguments, and go after the Christian parents, with their anti religious mindsets instead?  


  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    You say .....I myself have in this thread tried to be patient, kind, and give TKDB the benefit of the doubt. He is doing the exact same thing to you as he is me, and I'm taking the neutral position. I think my efforts here are obviously futile.  

    My reply ......Your patience and kindness are admirable especially when confronted with this most annoying person who keeps asking people to explain what Dawkins said and why are we not addressing the religious at churches with our anti religion mindset etc , etc ........I will try to be more charitable maybe in the future because he is obviously totally unbalanced  
    ZeusAres42
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch